Ogman v. Ebbert

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM and ORDER Sustaining petitioner's objectios to the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Blewitt; 4 The Report and Recommendation is not adopted and the Clerk of Court is directed to remand case to MJ Blewitt for further proceedings. Signed by Honorable James M. Munley on 7/20/10 (sm, )

Download PDF
Ogman v. Ebbert Doc. 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA M A R V IN OGMAN, P e t itio n e r : N o . 3:10cv1342 : : (J u d g e Munley) : : v. : : D A V ID J. EBBERT, : R espondent : :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: MEMORANDUM B e fo re the court are petitioner's objections to the report and recommendation o f Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Blewitt, which proposes that the court dismiss the in s ta n t petition for a writ of habeas corpus without prejudice for failure to exhaust a d m in is tra tiv e remedies. B a c k g ro u n d O n June 28, 2010, Marvin Ogman, an inmate at the United States Prison in A lle n w o o d , Pennsylvania, filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this c o u rt pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (See Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1 ) (hereinafter "Petition")). Petitioner contends that he is currently serving a 95m o n th sentence for drug-related charges. (Id.). He is scheduled for release on May 1 1 , 2011. (Id.). Beginning in January 2010, petitioner sought from the Bureau of P ris o n s consideration for a twelve-month placement in a Residential Reentry Center ("R R C ") pursuant to the Second Chance Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c). (Id.). When the Dockets.Justia.com prison did not respond to his initial request, petitioner on January 17, 2010 filed an In fo rm a l Resolution Form with the prison requesting an "adequate response." (Id.). On January 26, 2010, petitioner requested an administrative remedy from the p ris o n 's warden, Respondent David Ebbert. (Id.). Warden Ebbert responded by d e n y in g petitioner's request. (Id.). Petitioner appealed this decision to the Regional D ire c to r for the Bureau of Prisons, who denied his request. (Id.). On April 16, 2010, p e titio n e r appealed to the Central Office, which initially denied his request for failure to submit paperwork. (Id.). This denial was without prejudice, and petitioner re s u b m itte d his claim. (Id.). Petitioner then filed the instant action, alleging that the p ris o n had violated the Second Chance Act by failing to provide incentives for p ris o n e rs to participate in skills development programs. (Id.). Included among these re q u ire d incentives, petitioner claims, is a statutory mandate to consider prisoners fo r early placement in residential reentry centers. (Id.). Petitioner alleges that his rig h ts were violated because the prison does not properly provide that incentive. He s e e k s immediate placement in an RRC program. M a g is tra te Judge Blewitt provided the petition with an initial screening p u rs u a n t to Rule 4 or the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the U.S. District C o u rts . Judge Blewitt concluded that petitioner had failed to exhaust his a d m in is tra tiv e remedies as required under settled law in this Circuit. He therefore re c o m m e n d e d that the case be dismissed without prejudice. Petitioner filed o b je c tio n s to this report and recommendation, as well as a motion for a preliminary 2 injunction, bringing the case to its present posture. J u r is d ic tio n Because petitioner filed his action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the court has ju ris d ic tio n pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ("The district courts shall have original ju ris d ic tio n of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the U n ite d States."). Legal Standard When dealing with objections to a magistrate judge's report and re c o m m e n d a tio n , a district court must make a de novo determination of those p o rtio n s of the report to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). This c o u rt may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or re c o m m e n d a tio n s made by the magistrate. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). The district c o u rt judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the m a g is tra te judge with instructions. Id. Discussion T h e magistrate judge concluded that petitioner's claim should be dismissed w ith o u t prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Under federal law, "[f]e d e ra l prisoners are ordinarily required to exhaust their administrative remedies b e fo re petitioning for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2241." Moscato v. F e d e ra l Bureau of Prisons, 98 F.3d 757, 760 (3d Cir. 1993). The exhaustion re q u ire m e n t exists for three reasons: "(1) allowing the appropriate agency to develop 3 a factual record and apply its expertise facilitates judicial review; (2) permitting a g e n c ie s to grant the relief requested conserves judicial resources; and (3) providing a g e n c ie s the opportunity to correct their own errors fosters administrative a u to n o m y ." Id. at 761-62. This rule applies unless a petitioner can demonstrate th a t exhaustion "is futile." Gambino v. Morris, 134 F.3d 156, 171 (3d Cir. 1998) (R o th , concurring). Futility can occur when administrative review will not meet any of th e goals of the exhaustion doctrine. Bradshaw v. Carlson, 682 F.2d 1050, 1052 (3d C ir. 1981). S in c e the magistrate judge issued his recommendation and the petitioner filed h is objections, the petitioner has informed the court that the Bureau of Prisons has n o tifie d him that his appeal could be considered denied if he did not receive an o p in io n stating otherwise within forty days of filing the appeal. (See Exh. B to Motion to Amend/Correct (Doc. 8)). The Bureau's letter, dated June 30, 2010 informed p e titio n e r that a response to his appeal was due on July 11, 2010, and petitioner re la te s that he has received no such response. (See Exh. A to Motion to A m e n d /C o rre c t). As such, the court concludes that petitioner's appeal has been d e n ie d , and that he has therefore exhausted his administrative remedies. T h e report and recommendation proposed that the case be dismissed without p re ju d ic e for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Since those remedies have n o w been exhausted, the court cannot adopt the report and recommendation. Instead, the court will remand the case to the magistrate judge to address the issues 4 raised in the petition in relation to the Second Chance Act, as well as the motion for a preliminary injunction recently filed by the petitioner. C o n c lu s io n F o r the reasons stated above, the court will not adopt the report and re c o m m e n d a tio n , which proposes dismissing the action without prejudice. Instead, th e court will order the case remanded to Magistrate Judge Blewitt for proceedings c o n s is te n t with this opinion. 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA M A R V IN OGMAN, P e t itio n e r : N o . 3:10cv1342 : : (J u d g e Munley) : : v. : : D A V ID J. EBBERT, : R espondent : :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ORDER A N D NOW, to wit, this 20th day of July 2010, the petitioner's objections to the re p o rt and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Blewitt (Doc. 5) are h e re b y SUSTAINED. The report and recommendation is not adopted, and the Clerk o f Court is directed to REMAND the case to Magistrate Judge Blewitt for p ro c e e d in g s consistent with this opinion. BY THE COURT: s / James M. Munley JUDGE JAMES M. MUNLEY U N IT E D STATES DISTRICT COURT 6

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?